Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to quickly list and hear the petitions filed by several students from Karnataka who have been denied access to their classrooms for opting to wear hijab.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, however, did not specify a date on which the case would be listed.
Mr. Kamat, who appears for Aishat Shifa, submitted in an oral mentioning that his clients, many of them in pre-university classes, had their annual exams lined up next week.
“If they cannot take the exams, they will lose a year,” the senior lawyer pleaded.
The Bench responded that the issue had nothing to do with taking the exams. The court asked the senior lawyer not to sensationalise the issue.
Students have approached the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court judgment which had held that wearing hijab was not an essential practice in Islam.
One of them, Niba Naaz, represented by advocate Anas Tanwir, had countered the High Court’s conclusion by arguing that the “Indian legal system explicitly recognises the wearing/carrying of religious symbols... Motor Vehicles Act exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet... Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans into an aircraft”.
‘Freedom of conscience’
She argued that denying Muslim girls like her access to education, and thus, punishing them for wearing hijab to college was a violation of their right to privacy.
“Freedom of conscience forms a part of the right to privacy,” her petition said.
Any infringement of her right to privacy should be on the basis of a valid law, for a legitimate state interest and the law must be proportionate. No law prohibited hijab, she said.
Ms. Naaz argued that the High Court judgment had created a “dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience”.
“This freedom would include the freedom to lawfully express one’s identity in the manner of their liking,” the student contended.
The student said she and several others like her had approached the Karnataka High Court, expecting it to protect her fundamental rights and quash a State government order of February 5 directing college development committees to prescribe uniforms for them.
She termed the State government’s order as a “ridiculing attack” on Muslim students wearing hijab under the “guise of attaining secularity and equality on the basis of uniform”.
She said the State could not prescribe uniforms for students. It was for educational institutions to do so. Moreover, the law did not provide for the formation of “college development committees”. Further, Karnataka Educational Institutions Rules of 1995 did not make it mandatory for a school or institution to prescribe a uniform. In their case, no uniform had been prescribed by their respective institutions.
Ms. Naaz said the law did not require a student to be punished for not wearing a particular uniform. The act of denying students like her access to classrooms was illegal.
In February, the Supreme Court had assured the students protection of their constitutional rights and intervention at an “appropriate time”.
